Armoured RECCE

[Eye In The Sky]

What does all this mean? In Canadian doctrine armoured reconnaissance could absolutely Screen. Coyotes, LAVs and indeed TAPVs can Screen whether on the offence or defence. A Canadian armoured reconnaissance squadron could form part of a Guard (say a BG with a Recce Sqn attached) or with significant attachments it could contemplate a Guard task. Could adding ATGMs to LAV-Recce and TAPV allow a recce squadron or rebranded Cavalry squadron the ability to guard, or to think about operating as a US Cavalry organization? Perhaps. It would certainly make the destruction of enemy recce elements easier. They could think about fighting to buy time. I would prefer, though, to have some sub-sub units as scouts and others as shooters.

With the CAF budget and personnel realities, this seems like a reasonable goal to achieve in the near to mid future.

Without adding "anything" to the current ORBAT, this really just amounts to shell game, IMO.

 

[markppcli]

Not one Maple Resolve annually but many mini-Maple-Resolves continually for each of 1, 2 and 5 Brigades on their home training grounds.

Budget costs aside, collective training means no individual training. You develop good Sqn and Coy OCs at the expense of gunnery and soldiers.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

My comment about not needing dismounts was carrying a group of "extra" folks in the back for such things at tank hunting teams, infantry tasks and so on and so forth. Those "dismounts" sould be either in something like the assault troop or support troop (when they existed) or be attached infantry. IMHO, the "mud" recce troop should be lightly manned in small manoeuvrable vehicles lightly armoured but with decent self protection.

My bad, I didn't see the right context in your post.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Both the BvS10 and the STK Bronco 3 can swim and interestingly both are almost 1m SHORTER than the TAPV. Road speed however I'm thinking would be the issue (75km/h and 65km/h respectively).

75/65 are acceptable speeds IMO.

BUT...

They're pretty long...no AT capability (in the current in-service ones). Love the mobility...and carry capacity (sort of), but I'd look at something else. I understand that they can be separated, but I'd prefer something that is most useful in its default config.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Budget costs aside, collective training means no individual training. You develop good Sqn and Coy OCs at the expense of gunnery and soldiers.

Wondering if you can add some detail to this thought; wouldn't lower sub-unit SOPs/TTPs still be exercised? I'm probably missing your context...

 

[markppcli]

Wondering if you can add some detail to this thought; wouldn't lower sub-unit SOPs/TTPs still be exercised? I'm probably missing your context...

Right so MR / lvl 5 do not exercise individuals or sections. It’s about the major muscle movements and that is very much where the focus is. Being told “go take that building” is not the same as training guys to take said building, a section attack range is not teaching marksmanship. No one on a live cmbt team attack is checking the targets, see what I mean? What they do care about is did the combat team move there effectively, was the fire base established in the right place, and firing at the right time, ect ect. To get further into it the objective is usually a very simple set of linear target banks in the open behind wire, because no one wants to “waste” time waiting for the infantry to clear trench lines / strong points / woods (individual and section tasks).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Copy all. tks. I had no idea that was the reality - and it's too bad, really.

 

[GR66]

Using the equipment we currently have on hand (and assuming we can up-gun at least some of the TAPV's/LAVs with RWS upgrades) we could put together a set of capabilities something like this:

Scouts - TAPV with mix of Recce suites, AGL/MG for infantry suppression and ATGM for vehicle contacts. Possibly add in a LAV for the Troop Commander to give more room for attachments (translators, medic, etc.) and ATGM/25mm fire support. Scouts in TAPVs could have small UAVs for checking around obstacles, blinds, etc.

Close Support - LAVs (ideally with at least a portion armed with ATGMs) with supporting troops embarked (add'l dismounted scouts, infantry, fire support teams, pioneers for obstacle clearance, etc.) depending on the mission/threat environment.
- Leopards to deal with enemy armour encountered.

Stand-Off Support - LAV LRSS for stand-off surveillance, LAV w/UAV launchers (Coyote 2?) for ISR in advance of the "Mud Recce" element., LAV-SHORAD for local air defence and LAV-Mortar vehicles for integral IDF in support of the Scouts.

The whole organization could be made "light" for low intensity deployments by substituting G-Wagons for the TAPVs, TAPVs (with the same RWS as the LAVs) for the LAVs and LAVs (DFS version?) for the Leopards.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Using the equipment we currently have on hand (and assuming we can up-gun at least some of the TAPV's/LAVs with RWS upgrades) we could put together a set of capabilities something like this:

Scouts - TAPV with mix of Recce suites, AGL/MG for infantry suppression and ATGM for vehicle contacts. Possibly add in a LAV for the Troop Commander to give more room for attachments (translators, medic, etc.) and ATGM/25mm fire support. Scouts in TAPVs could have small UAVs for checking around obstacles, blinds, etc.

Close Support - LAVs (ideally with at least a portion armed with ATGMs) with supporting troops embarked (add'l dismounted scouts, infantry, fire support teams, pioneers for obstacle clearance, etc.) depending on the mission/threat environment.
- Leopards to deal with enemy armour encountered.

Stand-Off Support - LAV LRSS for stand-off surveillance, LAV w/UAV launchers (Coyote 2?) for ISR in advance of the "Mud Recce" element., LAV-SHORAD for local air defence and LAV-Mortar vehicles for integral IDF in support of the Scouts.

The whole organization could be made "light" for low intensity deployments by substituting G-Wagons for the TAPVs, TAPVs (with the same RWS as the LAVs) for the LAVs and LAVs (DFS version?) for the Leopards.

Is this in relation to the "fight for info" function?

I'm curious for those who've used tactical UAVs, how quickly can you deploy/recover them for things like obstacle clearance (drills)?

Does Tac Hel still play any role...co-op recce with ground assets? I just notice they are not mention in the ORBAT stuff at all.

 

[markppcli]

Copy all. tks. I had no idea that was the reality - and it's too bad, really.

Functionally the army training cycle revolves around live fire validation and ensure we have our individual qualifications met to enable that validation. Ie troops need to shoot pwt 3 or do LAV driver so that we can conduct a section attack so the section is good for the Cbt Tm attack. Actually getting good at something would require unit and sub unit commanders be trusted to train their men and quite frankly that CDTC f@ck off.

 

[Kirkhill]

Budget costs aside, collective training means no individual training. You develop good Sqn and Coy OCs at the expense of gunnery and soldiers.

Seems like the Brigadier/Brigade Commander might have a job to do then - balancing training in the brigade to create a brigade capable of being deployed.

And, as I noted, the money is the thing. People need the money to train and you cant build flexibility into the organization without constantly adjusting scenarios and practicing for them.

 

[KevinB]

Is this in relation to the "fight for info" function?

I'm curious for those who've used tactical UAVs, how quickly can you deploy/recover them for things like obstacle clearance (drills)?

Depends on the models. Some are very easy taking less than 30 seconds. I have seen others that are closer to 30 min or longer.

Does Tac Hel still play any role...co-op recce with ground assets? I just notice they are not mention in the ORBAT stuff at all.

The loss of the Kiowa…

The Griffon isn’t a fantastic platform for that - unless the enemy has no AD or Air power.

 

[KevinB]

Functionally the army training cycle revolves around live fire validation and ensure we have our individual qualifications met to enable that validation. Ie troops need to shoot pwt 3 or do LAV driver so that we can conduct a section attack so the section is good for the Cbt Tm attack. Actually getting good at something would require unit and sub unit commanders be trusted to train their men and quite frankly that CDTC f@ck off.

Had a very interesting discussion in Ft Benning this week about this sort of thing.
The solution they found (but didn’t adopt) was to make Brigades a 3 year readiness cycle.
18 months getting to full Brigade readiness and an 18month ‘Hi-Readiness’ cycle - the problem down here is you can’t freeze promotions, ETS, PCS, Schools in a Brigade in a vacuum. So it would have had to be adopted with a major culture shift in the entire US Army, and that became a bridge to far.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Depends on the models. Some are very easy taking less than 30 seconds. I have seen others that are closer to 30 min or longer.

30 seconds = Curious about this one; if my ROA doesn't allow me to deploy/recover my UAV...what is the COA? FIDO?

The loss of the Kiowa…

The Griffon isn’t a fantastic platform for that - unless the enemy has no AD or Air power.

It's been quite a few years...but I remember doing an Ex Winged Warrior in G-town/Sussex...early 90s? It was pretty sweet to have the LOH folks pop up and give us an "appears clear" before going blindy down a really long defile, etc.

One of my trips to Knox, we patched in with an Apache flight also doing a SIMEX; 2001 or so? Their ability to link SIM trg back then amazed me....and then I had to suffer thru a JANUS ex on return.

 

[KevinB]

30 seconds = Curious about this one; if my ROA doesn't allow me to deploy/recover my UAV...what is the COA? FIDO?

Depending on what they are it may require the user to ensure destruction prior to Driving On, or mounting a recovery operation. The ones in use as Team level ISR currently have a ‘burnout’ so they can be left if needed.

US Army is supposed to be fielding a new platoon/squad UAS - I’ve seen it demo’d but have no other info.

It's been quite a few years...but I remember doing an Ex Winged Warrior in G-town/Sussex...early 90s? It was pretty sweet to have the LOH folks pop up and give us an "appears clear" before going blindy down a really long defile, etc.

One of my trips to Knox, we patched in with an Apache flight also doing a SIMEX; 2001 or so? Their ability to link SIM trg back then amazed me....and then I had to suffer thru a JANUS ex on return.

Honestly I was constantly shocked despite Canada’s claim to ‘The Worlds First Digital Army’ what capabilities existed outside The Great White North.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

That old Cavalry thread takes me back! Some things change, others stay the same!

I do think that Canada could make a meaningful contribution to a multi-national peer conflict with a Cavalry Battlegroup consisting of our existing vehicle park and personnel. That Cav BG could execute security tasks for a Formation, either a Bde or Div. I think that the current war in Ukraine indicates that there will be gaps out there that Cavalry could secure.

What could it look like?

HQ: Based on a Armd Regt HQ potentially augmented with an STA Bty
1 x Recce Sqn
1 x Tank Sqn
1 x Infantry Company
1 x Engr Sqn
1 x Mortar Battery - 81mm carried by Bisons/ACSVs. M777 would be tempting, but I worry about the mobile fight? The BG would be operating within the fire support of the higher formation.

The BG CO could attached tank troops and/or infantry platoons to the Recce Sqn in some situations

Another permanently grouped option but with more panzers and recce could be:

HQ (as above)
2 x Cav Sqns: each with 2 x Recce Tps and 2 x Leopard 2 Troops (or 2 x Cav Light and 2 x Cav Heavy Tps)
1 x Tank Sqn (but there are not enough Leopard 2A6Ms to go around)
1 x Infantry Company
1 x Engr Sqn
1 x Mortar Bty

You could go with a BG with more Recce Sqns and no infantry. Greater frontage, but less combat power. Not a terrible idea?

Considering Recce Troops, by doctrine we have nine Patrols in the Recce Sqn (3 x Tps with 3 x Ptls each) plus the Tp HQs. This gives you a good frontage to screen with a little depth.

Traditionally, a Brigade Frontage in high-intensity conditions would be around 10 km (3 to 4 km per Bn), but we've been stretching that. So lets say 20 km of frontage for a Brigade these days. On an advance, you might have 10 to 20 km of frontage (or more it seems), along with a potentially lengthening open flank (or two) depending the the flanking forces situation.

From that, those Recce Sqns/Cav Sqns must be able to screen/guard at least 10 km and potentially 20 km. Either of the units above would be comfortable with 20 km frontages to guard. Ideally, they would either guard the front or a flank, although a moving flank guard has a responsibility to screen/guards its own frontage as if advances next to the guarded formation. Obviously, screening in the desert will have different requirements from screening in close terrain. Integral UAS to the Cav BG/Tps would, therefore, be very useful to fill in gaps.

Employed in front of an advancing formation, it could find enemy positions, neutralize enemy OPs and potentially neutralize/destroy enemy security positions to preserve the combat power of the supported formation. This later part is perhaps a little too robust, but hey.

This force could also be used to Guard a Bde or Div defensive preparation, neutralizing enemy reconnaissance and forcing the committal of enemy combat resources. They could then delay to buy more time. To execute a true Cover they would need significant fire support dedicated to them.

 

[markppcli]

Had a very interesting discussion in Ft Benning this week about this sort of thing.
The solution they found (but didn’t adopt) was to make Brigades a 3 year readiness cycle.
18 months getting to full Brigade readiness and an 18month ‘Hi-Readiness’ cycle - the problem down here is you can’t freeze promotions, ETS, PCS, Schools in a Brigade in a vacuum. So it would have had to be adopted with a major culture shift in the entire US Army, and that became a bridge to far.

It’s a similar problem hear, coupled with some one’s decision to do all our collective training in the Spring, right before APS moves everyone around.

 

[FJAG]

Had a very interesting discussion in Ft Benning this week about this sort of thing.
The solution they found (but didn’t adopt) was to make Brigades a 3 year readiness cycle.
18 months getting to full Brigade readiness and an 18month ‘Hi-Readiness’ cycle - the problem down here is you can’t freeze promotions, ETS, PCS, Schools in a Brigade in a vacuum. So it would have had to be adopted with a major culture shift in the entire US Army, and that became a bridge to far.

That's pretty much a problem for any professional army where there are a certain number of leaders that have to rotate through, gather experience and move on to the next step in their career. No wonder soldiers sometimes feel like all they are is training aids.

I think that the best you can hope for is a two year cycle where you post in at the beginning of year one and freeze postings for two years. Train for one year and then stand ready for the second, rinse and repeat. A second group works on alternate year cycles so that 1/2 of your force stands ready at all times.

I keep thinking back of our training cycles in the 70s, however, which didn't worry so much about readiness. The cycle was for one year starting after APS and moved through stages of individual, troop, battery and regimental training and culminated late spring in a brigade concentration (albeit sometimes the brigade exercise came earlier. Kip Kirby had us doing one as a winter exercise in February once.) And yes. You always had someone away on course or some assignment but we looked at that as an opportunity to let 2i/cs step up and show their stuff.

There might be one unit designated as a rapid reaction force for short notice deployments for things like prison riots or whatever emergency might arise, but it didn't really undertake any special training cycle for that. We did do specialized training for unusual events, such as the Montreal Olympics but generally when it came to war fighting a unit that does regular annual training is good to go for that continuously.

Call me a heretic, but I think we're too wrapped around the axle when it comes to these lengthy readiness cycles. Jeffrey introduced Managed Readiness and Total Fleet Management at a time when the Army had been so seriously restricted in resources that many units were unable to get the requisite training while also needing to deploy troops on two very disparate operations.

I think we've gotten beyond that. We still need to husband resources but I think there are simulated training systems and low resource expending exercises now that help out from the troop level to the formation level. I think everyone is still training every year but does a brigade really need a Maple Resolve to be deemed ready? or is this something the Army runs more because of risk aversion?

I guess we all grow used to and feel comfortable with what we experienced early in our careers. I feel comfortable with annual training cycles. Folks who came of age during Afghanistan feel comfortable with the three year MRS. I wonder if anyone has done a proper study on that in the last ten years and have some hard statistics.

 

[FJAG]

I do think that Canada could make a meaningful contribution to a multi-national peer conflict with a Cavalry Battlegroup consisting of our existing vehicle park and personnel.

I think so too and see nothing wrong with makeup of these groups.

There's one hang up though with "our existing vehicle park". If I have my numbers right, the Army has around three (maybe four) tank squadrons, seven recce squadrons and twenty-seven infantry rifle companies.

Canada is designed and structured for infantry heavy deployments. A sustained deployment of a cavalry battlegroup would seriously impact the ability to add any armour resources to a second sustained or even a time-limited deployment. In fact even one tank squadron on a sustained deployment would be hard pressed to be sustained while the recce squadrons also have to maintain one or more recce squadrons.

One could, off course, reallocate an infantry battalion or two worth of PYs to the RCAC.

 

[GR66]

That old Cavalry thread takes me back! Some things change, others stay the same!

I do think that Canada could make a meaningful contribution to a multi-national peer conflict with a Cavalry Battlegroup consisting of our existing vehicle park and personnel. That Cav BG could execute security tasks for a Formation, either a Bde or Div. I think that the current war in Ukraine indicates that there will be gaps out there that Cavalry could secure.

What could it look like? Not really much different than a slightly lighter version of the Swedish Mechanized Battalions but with larger Recce and Engineering elements.

HQ: Based on a Armd Regt HQ potentially augmented with an STA Bty
1 x Recce Sqn --> 1 x Recce Platoon
1 x Tank Sqn --> 2 x Tank Companies (11 tanks per company and 1 x FO Vehicle)
1 x Infantry Company --> 2 x Infantry Companies
1 x Engr Sqn --> 1 x Pioneer Platoon
1 x Mortar Battery --> 2 x Mortar Platoons
--> 1 x Anti-Aircraft Platoon